The New York Times takes on China's censors

Well, that didn't take long. Just days after The New York Times' soft launch of its
Chinese-language edition and accompanying microblog accounts, Berkeley-based China Digital Times website reports
that the @nytchinese Sina Weibo feed is no longer accessible in China,
along with two accounts hosted by Netease
and Sohu. We couldn't pull them up this
morning from New York, either.

The timing is discouraging. With the Chinese edition barely
off the ground, there has been no contentious content for censors to block
(such as Bloomberg's revelations
last week about Vice President Xi Jinping and his extended family's massive
assets, which were widely censored). Instead, the shutdown is apparently a
reaction to the Times' intentions.

Announcing the site, the news outlet was clear that it would
not pander to censors. "China operates a very vigorous firewall. We have no
control over that. We hope and expect that Chinese officials will welcome what
we're doing," Foreign Editor Joseph Kahn said in a blog
post about the new operation. That mildly-expressed mission is seemingly enough
justification for Sina and others to disable the account.

"We are seeking to clarify the situation with those accounts,"
Craig Smith, the paper's China managing director, told The
Associated Press.

Whether microblog managers took this step out of caution (they
are held responsible
for banned content posted by users) or on orders from above is unclear, as is
how long the disruption will last. The Financial Timesand the Wall Street Journaloperate
flourishing Chinese websites, with corresponding Weibo accounts.

It's always interesting to watch Weibo experiments to learn
what triggers the censors. Nicolas Kristof tried it in his Times column last
year, and CPJ just published an analysis
of recent academic studies on the topic. But there's another reason to follow
the Times' progress.

Both the Journal and
the Financial Times Chinese sites,
like their English counterparts, cover a broad range of issues, but cater to a
business readership. The lead story on the Journal's
Chinese site, at time of writing, was China's stockpile of rare-earth
minerals, while the Financial Times led
with economic stimulus measures.

Since Chinese business interests are so often connected with
political power, business news is sensitive and prone to censorship, yet also protected
by a corporate community that needs financial information for commercial success.
Bloomberg's report was a case in point: For highlighting Xi Jinping's wealthy associates
it was censored
for the average Web reader, yet Bloomberg's Professional service, which
provides real-time news and stock quotes, remained accessible. The risk of
offending investors who rely on that service outweighed the risk they would protest
against Xi's family allegedly exploiting political ties for advantages in
business.

Some commentators believe overseas news outlets must
emphasize these commercial benefits while tempering sensitive content in order
to reach their audience. The Journal declined
to comment on a story last week that alleged it censors content in China, according
to the Foreign Policy magazine website. The same article said the Financial Times is more likely to publish political stories, but at
the expense of its domestic readership when the articles are locally
blocked.

Will the Chinese New
York Times compromise its content, or its reach? With top stories today on
the closure of the iPad trademark dispute, and on Malaysian smog that recalls
China's recent spat
with the U.S. embassy in Beijing over air pollution ratings, it's hard to say.
But a number of people will be watching to see--the censors included.

Madeline Earp is senior researcher for CPJ’s Asia Program. She has studied Mandarin in China and Taiwan, and graduated with a master’s in East Asian studies from Harvard. Follow her on Twitter @cpjasia and Facebook @ CPJ Asia Desk.

Share

Can selective blocking pre-empt wider censorship?

February 3, 2012 5:14 PM ET

Last week, Twitter provoked a fierce debate online when it announced a new capability--and related policy--to hide tweets on a country-specific basis. By building this feature into its website's basic code, Twitter said it hoped to offer a more tailored response to legal demands to remove tweets globally. The...